Cybernetics and Systems Analysis

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 638–654 | Cite as

An approach to expert assessment in software engineering

Software–Hardware Systems

An approach is proposed to the solution of formalized problems of assessment of the activity that produces and maintains software systems (SSs). Such assessment is realized by using expertises that form a new assessment process adequate to the activity needs and specifics with an environment common to the expertises. The following mathematical apparatus is elaborated for expertises: a framework (target functions and executing mechanisms), a model and methods (formalisms for improving the quality and reusing the results of expertises) of an assessment process, and tools for integrating the apparatus into software development management processes. The approach is theoretically justified. Prospects of developing the proposed approach are described.


production of software systems assessment problem mathematical apparatus expertise technology model of an expert assessment process ontology homomorphism metrized similarity value tree validity of an expert decision 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ISO/IEC TR 19759:2005, Software Engineering – Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) (2005),
  2. 2.
    Guide to PMBOK. A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, PMBOK GUIDE, Third Edition,
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    E. M. Lavrishcheva, G. I. Koval and T. M. Korotun, “An approach to the software quality management,” Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, No. 5, 758–768 (2006).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    I. Sommerville, Software Engineering [Russian translation], Izd. Dom “Williams,” Moscow–St. Petersburg–Kiev (2002).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. M. Lavrishcheva, Programming Methods: Theory, Engineering, and Practice [in Russian], Naukova Dumka, Kiev (2006).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. M. Lavrishcheva, “Software engineering as a scientific and engineering discipline,” Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, No. 3, 324–332 (2008).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. M. Lavrishcheva, “Classification of software engineering disciplines,” Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, No. 6, 792–796 (2008).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Matinlassi, E. Niemela, and L. Dobrica, Quality-driven architecture design and quality analysis method. A revolutionary initiation approach to a product line architecture, ESPOO 2002,
  10. 10.
    V. M. Glushkov, Foundations of Paperless Informatics [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow (1982).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. I. Andon, L. D. Babko, and G. I. Koval, DSTU ISO/IEC 14756:2008 Information Technologies. Measurement and Assessment of Performance of Software Systems, 1st Edition, Derzhspozhivstandard (2008).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. B. Moroz and T. M. Korotun, “Risk-operational approach to the solution of the problem of optimum release of software systems," Probl. Progr., Nos. 2–3, 231–236 (2006).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. G. Olumofin and V. B. Misic, “Extending the ATAM architecture evaluation to product line architectures,”
  14. 14.
    D. von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards, Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge University Press (1986).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. S. Shmerling, S. A. Dubrovskii, T. D. Arzhanova, and A. A. Frenkel, “Expert judgments: Methods and applications,” Stat. Methody Analiza Expertn. Otsenok, Uch. Zap. po Statistike, 29, Nauka, Moscow (1977).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. G. Litvak, Expert Examination and Decision-Making [in Russian], Patent, Moscow (1996).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    O. O. Slabospic’ka, “Integrating model of the process of expert assessment activity in life cycles of software systems,” Probl. Progr., Nos. 2–3, 279–287 (2008).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. J. Osterweil, B. I. Simidchievz, L. A. Klarke, et al., “Representing process variation with a process family,” in: Q. Wang, D. Pfahl, and D. M. Raffo (eds.), Software Process Dynamics and Agility, International Conference on Software Process, ICSP 2007, Minneapolis, MN, USA (2007), pp. 109–120,
  19. 19.
    N. F. Noy, R. W. Fergerson, and M. A. Musen, The Knowledge Model of Protégé-2000: Combining Interoperability and Flexibility,
  20. 20.
    A. Gómez-Pérez, M. Blázquez, M. Fernández, et al., Ontologies at the Knowledge Level Using the Ontology Design Environment,
  21. 21.
    E. P. Ilyin and O. A. Slabospickaya, “Forms, metrics, and properties of the similarity relation between concepts in ontologies of expert viewpoints,” Probl. Progr., No. 4, 39–49 (2005).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. M. Rappoport and M. V. Schneiderman, “Analysis of expert judgments represented by structures,” Prikl. Mnogomern. Stat. Analiz, Uch. Zap. po Statistike, Nauka, Moscow, No. 33, 150–164 (1978).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    E. P. Ilyin, Yu. V. Ol’khovskaya, and O. A. Slabospickaya, “Construction and substantiation of the generalized tree of value criteria in taking into account different viewpoints on a multicriteria assessment problem,” Probl. Progr., Nos. 2–3, 344–352 (2004).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    E. P. Ilyina and O. A. Slabospickaya, “Objectives and criteria of logical-statistical analysis of expert preferences under conditions of a conflict between viewpoints on the object domain of a choice problem,” Probl. Progr., Nos. 1–2, 471–483 (2000).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    O. A. Slabospickaya, “A formal apparatus of expert solution of a multicriteria assessment problem with allowance for some viewpoints on the problem,” Probl. Progr., Nos. 1–2, 430–440 (2002).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    F. Francella and D. Bannister, New Method of Personality Study [Russian translation], Progress, Moscow (1987).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    O. A. Slabospickaya, “An approach to the development of support tools for expertise of hierarchical alternatives in a developing object domain,” Probl. Progr., No. 4, 51–58 (1998).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Hollender and D. A. Vulf, Nonparametric Statistics [Russian translation], Finansy i Statistika, Moscow (1983).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Program SystemsNational Academy of Sciences of UkraineKievUkraine

Personalised recommendations